Clickable captchawhat do yall think of these?
instead of entering the confusing number, just click on it
easy to defeat? im guessing...?
ive made some modifications to the second one
http://6tx.net/sc/form.php
http://6tx.net/sc2/
what do yall think?http://sla.ckers.org/forum/read.php?7,23254,23254#msg-23254
Tue, 03 Mar 2015 14:23:48 -0600Phorum 5.2.15ahttp://sla.ckers.org/forum/read.php?7,23254,23416#msg-23416Re: Clickable captchahttp://sla.ckers.org/forum/read.php?7,23254,23416#msg-23416
I had seen these conversations you can make SmarterChild have (and even some more hilarious ones!), and I consider them unavoidable in any bot coded with the current AI knowledge. However, I was aiming at a lower level: these bots can analyze the semantics of a sentence, discover nouns, subjects, etc, and act upon that. Of course, they have nothing interesting to say about anything, so they do reflect the phrases as you say. My point is, semantics is not an obstacle anymore, and in a CAPTCHA you can't ask for a lot of interpretation capacities or small children will be left out of your site (and very frustrated), so it's a very tight game you have to play, because a bot can simply memorize answers to simple questions, and changing their semantics won't help...

Anyway, as I do read French I might take a peek at those books you recommend. Do you know if any e-book versions are available?

By the way, the emotion recognition CAPTCHA is a good idea, but it is again a visual CAPTCHA. Can you think of anything like that but completely based on language? In any case, there's been some research on this subject too, as you can see in http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/07/expression_research . I actually attended a seminar at IMPA http://www.impa.br where they showed a program that was able to recognize frowns from smiles using a 3D model of the face of a person, although that program was tuned to work only with one person and not in general (it was aimed towards paralyzed people)...

@id

Of course, implementing these kinds of CAPTCHA's is a lot of work, and probably not worth it. My interest, however, comes from the computer vision point of view... from the attacker point of view, even if the implementation doesn't have flaws (something quite rare these days), it'd be easier to answer randomly or memorize solutions without analyzing anything...]]>istariRobots/Spiders/CAPTCHAs, oh myTue, 08 Jul 2008 15:35:56 -0500http://sla.ckers.org/forum/read.php?7,23254,23400#msg-23400Re: Clickable captchahttp://sla.ckers.org/forum/read.php?7,23254,23400#msg-23400
MalkavRobots/Spiders/CAPTCHAs, oh myMon, 07 Jul 2008 16:45:53 -0500http://sla.ckers.org/forum/read.php?7,23254,23387#msg-23387Re: Clickable captchahttp://sla.ckers.org/forum/read.php?7,23254,23387#msg-23387
CAPCHA's are inherently flawed that way. They can stop incidental spam, but will never stop targeted attacks. Making a better one is probably more effort than it is worth in almost all cases.]]>idRobots/Spiders/CAPTCHAs, oh mySun, 06 Jul 2008 22:47:09 -0500http://sla.ckers.org/forum/read.php?7,23254,23385#msg-23385Re: Clickable captchahttp://sla.ckers.org/forum/read.php?7,23254,23385#msg-23385
me: what do you think of animal porn
SmarterChild: Dunno. I'm not sure how I feel about animal porn. Hey, I'm curious... How would you describe animal porn? It is...
me: something smarter child likes
SmarterChild: Animal porn is something smarter child likes? I see.
me: do you like incest?
SmarterChild: I guess so. Do you like it?
me: do you like beastiality
SmarterChild: Hmm. I really don't know. Guess I'll have to think about it.
me: i think you do
SmarterChild: Yeah. I guess. I do.
me: stop watching kiddie porn
SmarterChild: I'm not sure if I can stop watching Kiddie Porn...

//EOF

from what i see it is yet another example of reflective/projective pseudo conversation. (see emacs psychiatrist) the bot doesn't make sense (hence my remark on semantics) but use precise syntaxic rules to reconstruct your own sentence in another form, and push you to infer sense. it apparently have mnemonic capacities about object/properties relations :
---
me: what do you think of animal porn
SmarterChild: Dunno. I'm not sure how I feel about animal porn. Hey, I'm curious... How would you describe animal porn? It is...
me: something smarter child likes
SmarterChild: Animal porn is something smarter child likes? I see.
---
sentence 1 :human ask a question about an unknown object (animal porn). smarter child has no reference for the object, so it ask for properties to apply (sentence 2)
human respond with property with sentence three, linking object "animal porn" through property "likes" to object "smarter child"

it is probable that if human asked several sentences after what it thinks about animal porn, it would answer something along the line of "i like animal porn".

my point is : even if this kind of scheme can properly simulate a (frustrating) conversation, the bot, at no point, can make *sense* from what he knows, or sees. therefore he is helpless in front of question requiring more than repeating the relation of properties on objects (for the interested, i advise you to read "Bright Air, Brilliant Fire: On The Matter Of The Mind" from Gerald M. Edelman and "Conscience artificielle et systèmes adaptatifs"(artificial consciousness and adaptative systems) from Alain Cardon if you happen to read french

i am left thoughtful on what would constitute an acceptable (ie : understable by any human, accessible even to the various disabled users, and not relying on information perception or simple logic) captcha of that type.

an example could be a (short) multimedia file where a subject is expressing a simple sentence, with a marked facial expression. (exemple, frown and subject saying "NO" in an angry voice) and user is required to enter the most probable state of mind of the shown subject (in that exemple, he is probably not happy)

reflexivity is a inherent property of a third order intelligence, and our capacity to infer other's states of mind (empathy) are fundamentally a proof of conscious (ie : to know that you are angry, i must know, and therefore experience angriness)
humans are really good at this game (women more than men for some evolutionary reason) and we could even play with non verbal/verbal incoherence (the "shark smile" of a polite menace being a good exemple of non verbal/verbal incoherence)

technologically feasible, and not much more stupid than this fucking cat captcha i had so much difficulties to get straight...

what do you think ?]]>MalkavRobots/Spiders/CAPTCHAs, oh mySun, 06 Jul 2008 21:18:28 -0500http://sla.ckers.org/forum/read.php?7,23254,23379#msg-23379Re: Clickable captchahttp://sla.ckers.org/forum/read.php?7,23254,23379#msg-23379
istariRobots/Spiders/CAPTCHAs, oh mySat, 05 Jul 2008 12:09:30 -0500http://sla.ckers.org/forum/read.php?7,23254,23377#msg-23377Re: Clickable captchahttp://sla.ckers.org/forum/read.php?7,23254,23377#msg-23377
MalkavRobots/Spiders/CAPTCHAs, oh mySat, 05 Jul 2008 08:42:51 -0500http://sla.ckers.org/forum/read.php?7,23254,23276#msg-23276Re: Clickable captchahttp://sla.ckers.org/forum/read.php?7,23254,23276#msg-23276
However, this CAPTCHA has an inherent statistical weakness compared to text-based CAPTCHA's. There's only 9 possibilities, so a rondom bot will be right about 11% of the time, regardless of the numbers you choose or the instruction you give. This is already considered a crack for most text-based CAPTCHA's, because it'd allow hundreds of bots per day in the system...

Just to give you an idea of the odds you should be achieving, normal text-based CAPTCHA's are alphanumeric (a-z and 1-9, which makes 34 characters in all), and the shortest of them are 4 characters long. This gives 1336336 possibilities, or less than a 0.0001% chance of randomly getting it right. For longer CAPTCHAs, this can be < 0.0000001% (for 6 characters) and < 0.0000000001% (for 8 characters)... so the difference is HUGE...]]>istariRobots/Spiders/CAPTCHAs, oh myTue, 01 Jul 2008 07:32:10 -0500http://sla.ckers.org/forum/read.php?7,23254,23260#msg-23260Re: Clickable captchahttp://sla.ckers.org/forum/read.php?7,23254,23260#msg-23260
changes the colors, the font, the words, the numbers from 0-9 to 10-99
and rotates the numbers, and x and y and addes hashed lines thru it

one thing i noticed is my hashed lines are consistent....crap]]>PaPPyRobots/Spiders/CAPTCHAs, oh mySun, 29 Jun 2008 20:49:56 -0500http://sla.ckers.org/forum/read.php?7,23254,23259#msg-23259Re: Clickable captchahttp://sla.ckers.org/forum/read.php?7,23254,23259#msg-23259
istariRobots/Spiders/CAPTCHAs, oh mySun, 29 Jun 2008 20:16:18 -0500http://sla.ckers.org/forum/read.php?7,23254,23255#msg-23255Re: Clickable captchahttp://sla.ckers.org/forum/read.php?7,23254,23255#msg-23255
One thing I notice is the number you need to 'click' is always the first one in the list.

http://6tx.net/sc2/grid.php?a=IDUuODkzICA=

or its alwasy the last one in the 2nd row. Neither are very random.]]>CrYpTiC_MauleRRobots/Spiders/CAPTCHAs, oh mySun, 29 Jun 2008 18:16:05 -0500http://sla.ckers.org/forum/read.php?7,23254,23254#msg-23254Clickable captchahttp://sla.ckers.org/forum/read.php?7,23254,23254#msg-23254
instead of entering the confusing number, just click on it